Manoj Kumar Gupta ORDER
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Whether Permanent Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to grant compensation to the dependents of a victim of electrocution, who died as a result of live 11000 KVA high tension line falling on him and whether the compensation awarded in the instant case is excessive and arbitrary, are the questions which arise for consideration in the instant petition.
2. On 22.04.2009 Subhash Yadav, husband of the second respondent and the father of the third to fifth respondents, while going to drop one Smt. Manju d/o Shiv Poojan at her in-laws house on a motorcycle, died of electrocution on coming into contact with live 11000 KVA high tension line near village Majhaura. The current was of such high intensity that even the motorcycle got burnt. Manju, the pillion rider was severely injured and was admitted to a hospital. On the same date, at 11.00 a.m., a first information report was lodged at Police Station Harpur, Budhhat, District Gorakhpur. A post mortem was conducted by the Police also on the same date, which discloses the cause of death to be electrocution. At the time of death, he was 30 years of age and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. According to the claimants, they were assured by the electricity department that a sum of Rs. 2 lakh will be paid as compensation. Out of it, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to them on 18.7.2009 provisionally and the remaining amount was assured to be paid after completing certain formalities. However, when further amount was not paid, the dependents of the deceased got compelled to approach the Permanent Lok Adalat, raising claim for payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 15% per annum and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh for financial, physical and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited contested the proceedings by filing objections, inter alia, alleging that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as compensation to the claimants and thus, the petition now filed for payment of more amount as compensation is not maintainable and is barred by provisions of res-judicata; that the incident took place because of the negligence of the deceased; that the dispute raised in the petition is beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat; that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; it is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. The Permanent Lok Adalat held that the dispute relates to supply of power, which is a 'public utility service' and thus the claim made in that regard, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat; that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. failed to show how the petition was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that there was no adjudication of the dispute by any court of law and thus, the plea of res-judicata is not at all attracted; that the claim made was well within the limitation; that the plea that the victim was guilty of negligence, is contrary to the admitted fact that the department itself had paid Rs. 50,000/- as compensation; and that award of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants is not a just and fair compensation and they are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of the award until payment is made.
5. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division II, one of the parties in the case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, has approached this court by filing instant petition challenging the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat passed on 8.01.2013.
6. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat is only empowered to settle disputes by conciliation and was not having any jurisdiction to decide the case on merits. Elaborating his submission, it was urged that once the petitioner had disputed the claim of the respondents on merits, it was not within the power and jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to proceed to decide the dispute on merits. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Torrent Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others MANU/UP/2397/2013 : 2014 (1) ADJ 563.
7. Lok Adalats derive their power and authority from the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 19871, enacted with the object of fulfilling the constitutional mandate of Article 39-A of the Constitution inserted by Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976. It enjoins upon the State the duty to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity, by providing free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or other modes so as to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability. Initially, when the Act was framed, it only had a role to facilitate compromise or settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at a compromise or settlement, the case was either returned to the court of law or the parties were advised to seek remedy before appropriate forum. This resulted in unnecessary delay in dispensation of justice. In order to overcome the delay in dispensation of justice in cases where the parties do not arrive at a compromise or settlement in Lok Adalat, it was felt necessary by the Parliament to provide for a mechanism for adjudication of the dispute which could not be settled by compromise or conciliation by providing for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats to be invested with the power to decide dispute on merits.
8. Accordingly, the Act was amended in the year 2002 and Chapter VI-A (Sections 22-A to 22-E) were inserted. Section 22-A (a) defines Permanent Lok Adalat to mean a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of Section 22-B. "Public utility service" is defined in Section 22-A (b) to include, inter alia, the supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment. Section 22-C provides for the mechanism, according to which, a matter brought before Permanent Lok Adalat is to be proceeded with. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 22-C enjoin upon it the duty to conduct conciliation proceedings between the parties and assist them in reaching at amicable settlement. Sub-section (8) of Section 22-C provides that where the parties fail to reach at an agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to any offence, decide the dispute.
9. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat has undergone a change from time to time and at present it is Rs. 25 lakhs. The award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat, in the instant case, is well within its pecuniary limits. It is not in dispute that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., the opposite parties to the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, are engaged in distribution and supply of electricity and 11000 KVA high-tension line, the snapping of which caused the accident, belongs to them. Section 22-A (b), which defines public utility service, as noted above, take within its sweep "supply of power". A dispute raising a claim for compensation alleging negligence on part of the distribution company in maintenance of the electricity lines meant for supply of power, is thus a dispute coming under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. In the impugned award, a specific finding has been recorded that the efforts made by the Permanent Lok Adalat to settle the dispute by conciliation had failed to yield any result and consequently, the dispute was decided on merits.
10. In Bar Council of India v. Union of India MANU/SC/0614/2012 : (2012) 8 SCC 243 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the provisions of Chapter VI-A inserted by the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment Act, 2002). It repelled the contention that the Permanent Lok Adalat could not have been conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a dispute on merits. The Supreme Court negated the contention and held as under:--
"27.Can the power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes between the parties concerning public utility service up to a specific pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided under Section 22-C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational? We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a tribunal may not necessarily have all the trappings of the court. What is essential is that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VI-A has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that Permanent Lok Adalat was not competent to decide the dispute on merits, failing a settlement between the parties, cannot be accepted.
12. In M/s. Torrent Power Ltd. (supra) validity of an assessment bill raised for alleged unauthorised use of electricity was challenged before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The Permanent Lok Adalat had set aside the assessment bill. This Court found that the assessment bill was raised as there were allegations of unauthorised use of electricity, which constitutes an offence under the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, the dispute in that case related to an offence punishable under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 22-C (8), which specifically debars a Permanent Lok Adalat from deciding a dispute on merits, if it relates to an offence, held that in the facts of that case, the Permanent Lok Adalat was not competent to decide the dispute on merits. The aforesaid decision is thus not at all attracted to the facts of the instant case.
13. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim was himself negligent, and keeping in view the doctrine of contributory negligence, the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lakh in addition to Rs. 50,000/- already paid, is highly excessive. In this regard, reliance has been placed on an office memorandum dated 19.6.2008 issued by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. providing for payment of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in cases of loss of human life, as a result of any accident on account of electrocution. It further stipulates that in cases of permanent or partial disability, the compensation shall be in proportion to the disability, subject to ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the claimants-respondents in presence of the Assistant Engineers Sri Vishal Saran Mishra and Sri S.K. Gupta and Station House Officer, Harpur Budhhat and thus, no further claim was admissible.
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in distribution and supply of electric energy and 11000 KVA line, with which the accident took place, belongs to it. The electricity is a dangerous commodity and a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable to compensate the victim on the principle of strict liability. It cannot be permitted to absolve itself from its liability by contending that had the victim been more careful, the incident would not have taken place. Even the doctrine of contributory negligence is not attracted. In the celebrated case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-73) All ER Reb1, the doctrine of strict liability has been explained thus:--
"The true rule of law is that the person, who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
15. The aforesaid doctrine laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra) is consistently being followed by courts in our country. The Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and others MANU/SC/0020/2002 : 2002 (2) SCC 162 placed reliance on the doctrine of strict liability and upheld the claim for compensation against the Electricity Board on account of electrocution. In that case, the victim had come in contact with a live wire lying on the road and as a result whereof, he died. The plea set up in defence by the Board that the accident occurred because of mischief committed by a third party in siphoning energy to his private property and electrocution was from such diverted line, was held to be not available in cases of 'strict liability'. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the observations made in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0092/1986 : (1987) 1 SCC 395 holding that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or dangerous activity, it is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident, without any exception. The observations made are thus:
"Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Thus, the petitioner, by virtue of doctrine of strict liability, cannot shirk from its liability to compensate the claimants. In fact, in the instant case, the petitioner had concededly paid Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the said amount having been accepted by the claimants, they could not have approached the Permanent Lok Adalat, nor was it justified in granting any further amount over and above the sum stipulated under the office memorandum dated 18.6.2008.
17. The amount of compensation is in the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The principle embodies the doctrine that the person entitled to damages should get such sum of money which would put him (his dependents) in the same position as he (they) would have been if wrong had not taken place.
18. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009 : 2009) 2 SCC 688the Supreme Court held that a compensation which is just and reasonable should be awarded. A balance has to be struck between inflated claim and adequate compensation. It was observed thus:
"We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The 'adequate compensation' that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The Supreme Court has applied the principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act in upholding grant of compensation in cases of fatal accidents or disabilities, even in cases not governed by the said Act. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 can thus serve as a guiding principle for determining the compensation. In fact, in the case of medical negligence, the Supreme Court in Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha and others MANU/SC/1098/2013 : (2014) 1 SCC 384 has deviated from the multiplier method, in awarding a higher compensation considered to be just and reasonable. In the case of Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and others (2014) 42 SCD 215 the Supreme Court held that in case of electrocution of a four years boy coming into contact with a naked electric wire lying on the floor of his house, the principles laid down for award of compensation in cases of medical negligence would hold good. It was observed as under:--
"17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. The following case law is followed by this Court in the above referred case, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant.
68......... three-Judges Bench decision of this Court in Indian Medical Assn. v. V.P. Shantha, wherein this Court has categorically disagreed on this specific point in another case wherein "medical negligence" was involved. In the said decision, it has been held at para 53 that to deny a legitimate claim or to restrict arbitrarily the size of an award would amount to substantial injustice to the claimant."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In the instant case, there was a specific plea by the claimants that Rs. 50,000/- paid to them was accepted provisionally, as officials of the U.P. Power Corporation assured them that they are holding an inquiry and remaining amount would be paid after the inquiry is over. The petitioner has not brought on record the details of the inquiry held by them, the circumstances in which Rs. 50,000/- was paid as compensation to the claimants, which was even contrary to their own circular which contemplates payment of Rs. 1 lakh in case of death. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the claimants having accepted Rs. 50,000/- as compensation were debarred from raising claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
21. The deceased was a young man of 30 years at the time of his death. He was allegedly earning Rs. 5000/- per month. His family comprised of widow, one son and two daughters, who were minor. The Power Corporation in its objections has not disputed that the deceased was earning Rs. 5000/- per month at the time of accident. Thus, even if the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & others. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 are applied, it can easily be assumed that the deceased was contributing at least 2/3 of his income to his family. His age being 30 years or may be a few years more, the multiplier to be used is 16. The amount so calculated would be more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the award directing for payment of a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs, in addition to Rs. 50,000/- already paid to the claimants. The amount awarded is neither excessive nor arbitrary.
22. It is appalling to note that the circular dated 19.6.2008 provides for payment of a maximum sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for death and a proportionate amount to the extent of disability, subject to ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh in cases of partial or permanent disability. The aforesaid amount, in the opinion of the Court, is highly inadequate even if measured by most modest standards. Further, the circular was issued in the year 2008 and if the rate of inflation is kept in mind, there would atleast be a three fold increase by now. The circular though not binding on a court of law, is nonetheless binding on the official of the Corporation while admitting a claim for compensation in case of death or disability. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. is an instrumentality of the State. It is not merely a commercial venture but is entrusted with the duty and responsibility of making contribution in nation building. It is having a social responsibility to fulfill. The instant case is one of those cases where the claim could have been settled outside court, had there been a proper circular in place, providing for adequate compensation. Even in the absence of the same, when the matter came before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the very object of which is to settle the dispute by encouraging the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, the least which was required of the petitioner was to have availed that opportunity and settled the claim. However, it seems that because of administrative apathy, or may be adamance not to admit a just compensation, it created a situation where the Permanent Lok Adalat was forced to decide the dispute on merits. The compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, as held above, is a modest amount, not unreasonable or arbitrary, by any standard, for death of a young man aged 30 years. However, once again, acting in a mechanical manner, eschewing its responsibility as a model public corporation and oblivious of its social obligation, the Corporation brought the matter to this Court. The award is dated 8.1.2013 and instead of paying the compensation to the claimants, a belated petition was filed before this Court after more than two and a half year, with a lame excuse that the award was not in its knowledge.
23. It is high time where public bodies, corporations, State functionaries and like, do not indulge in thoughtless and reckless litigation. The Courts are already over-burdened and if the public bodies, before bringing a matter to a court of law, delve on the merits and demerits of their stand, in an objective manner, much of the unnecessary litigation could be avoided.
24. This Court considers it desirable that this judgment be communicated to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, the Principal Secretary, Energy as well as the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Director of all four Distribution Companies2 so that they consider issuing proper guidelines providing for payment of fair and reasonable compensation in case of death, fatal accident or injuries, in supercession of the existing Circular. The Registrar General is directed to take necessary action in that regard, by sending a copy of this order to each one of them. It is expected that all concerned shall ensure compliance of the observations made above, in its true letter and spirit.
25. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the claimants alongwith the compensation awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat for forcing the claimants to indulge in uncalled for and avoidable litigation. The entire amount, alongwith up-to-date interest shall be paid to the claimants within one month, failing which the interest shall become payable at the rate of 14% per annum for the subsequent period.
1The Act.
2Rule 2 (f) of the Uttar Pradesh Power Sector Reforms (Transfer of Distribution Undertakings) Scheme, 2003.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.